We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.

Units Thread

Since a tech tree thread was opened I figured it's time to open a units thread.
I think for this modmod unit diversity was much bigger between each civ, for example the Greeks had several troops that the Babylonians couldn't even imagine recruiting and using for themselves, so each civ should have several UU's.
I think this would also help civs that were very powerful historically like Macedonians and Romans conquer lands more effectively with better units.
What's more is that even if Rome for example has too many UU's and they'll be too powerful, some of them can always be UU's only in the sake of unique name and graphics without any gameplay bonuses.
I don't have any ideas for UU's except the obvious ones but I think we should only start giving ideas after most basic units are coded in, so for now discussions and generic ideas are welcome.
(for example, for and against on the subject of multiple UU's per civ).

I think that maybe UU's should be different from the ones they replace but with the "same strenght" so for example if the generic spearman has 4 strenght and +100% vs mounted roman triarii could have instead 4 strenght and +75% vs mounted and +25% vs melee

Additionally there could be a couple of "real" UU's that have a bonus over the originals like in normal Civ

Also, civ specific unique units could be focused on certain time periods where the civ was most sucessful (E.g. Alexander the Great for Greece, Caesar for Rome, Hannibal for Carthage) which would help them achieve their historical extent but also have them fall somewhat historically based on the fact that their adversary all of a sudden has better units. Just a thought.

Also, civ specific unique units could be focused on certain time periods where the civ was most sucessful (E.g. Alexander the Great for Greece, Caesar for Rome, Hannibal for Carthage) which would help them achieve their historical extent but also have them fall somewhat historically based on the fact that their adversary all of a sudden has better units. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Maybe Hero Un its could be used, a once buildable unit, or event given unit.

Why? Because Historically in this era each civilization had big differences in the ways the armies were compromised, equipped, trained, and such, so I think it's important enough to represent in the mod.

Are the units of the ancient world so significantly different from each other, compared to the other units throughout history that RFC already modeled? And are they so different that the amount of work in getting skins and balancing the stats is something that you want to do?

These are all somewhat interesting ideas, but the bigger question is "why?" Remember, RFC is based around simplicity and not changing the core mechanics of Civ4 as much as possible.

Click to expand...

What fun is playing a mod if the only changes are going to be different skins and names?
Never mind that built-in leaderhead changes, historical starting dates and plague aren't very simplistic in comparison to historically accurate, you know. Changing unit classes and UU's is the least complicated thing in RFC. But why would you care? Rhye's doing all the work in coding all this but you won't even bother with adapting to new playing styles. Don't you consider that just a bit hypocritic?

Not in the slightest. I've seen a lot of amateur-designed games and mods crash and burn because they subscribe to a "wouldn't it be cool if we had everything everybody wanted?" philosophy of game design.

Part of the reason I play and enjoy RFC so much is that it doesn't subscribe to the "bigger is better" philosophy. It's far closer to a KISS philosophy, and that makes for better gaming.

What fun is playing a mod if the only changes are going to be different skins and names?
Never mind that built-in leaderhead changes, historical starting dates and plague aren't very simplistic in comparison to historically accurate, you know. Changing unit classes and UU's is the least complicated thing in RFC. But why would you care? Rhye's doing all the work in coding all this but you won't even bother with adapting to new playing styles. Don't you consider that just a bit hypocritic?

Click to expand...

Pros of keeping the same exact system and just renaming/reskinning them:

+ Low learning curve: It's easy for outsiders to download the mod and get going. There are no big changes in the "skeleton" of the game so the "meat", namely the new concepts, the new map and the new civs, can be enjoyed directly.

+ Lesser balancing issues: It's illusory to think that you could create a balanced game when Firaxis itself needed a few years to create a balance. That way you can concentrate more on the other things.

+ Less work: The mod is finished faster!

EDIT: Prime Example being RFC:Europe. Although the guys are doing quite a good job there. (Really, )

The main idea behind making the military more complex is to create more depth to the warfare in the game. What unit do people usually use to assault the ancient/classical world in Civ IV? Probably Axemen, even after getting Swordsmen, due to their humongous bonus against all melee units. What about after Guilds? Heavy Macemen or mobile and strong Knights?
To be frank, currently certain units have a monopoly over their own era's warfare.

So where am I going with that? The tip shown in the Civ IV hint window should be used more as a guideline in high-profile mods than it ended up in the actual game; "Axes have advantage against melee units, spears against mounted foes and swords against cities." Different unit classes and military ranks should have more importance in war and lacking one area should create an opening for an opponent. Since there would be no modern combat classes, we wouldn't have to have more than melee, polearm, archery (ranged), light/heavy cavalry and recon units. That's really just two more than what we would be going for originally.

However, that's going to meet resistance in both the developer team and fanbase. Also, I like your Javelineer unit idea, Arkeyn.

I thought about the Axeman->Legion possibility, but I think we'd still need an advanced barbarian infantry unit for the Roman collapse. Or perhaps just a massive pile of axemen and swordsmen would be enough.

I was mistaken in saying "Legionary." That's the singular of a soldier in a Legion, apparently. No Latin for me.

By the way, apparently Rome's rivals in the Mediterranean copied their Legions when Rome's dominance over the hoplite was established. This is modeled in mods for Rome:Total War by adding alternate legions when the Marian Reforms come into being, for example. That's part of why I have Legion as the generic term, and a Roman UU like Praetorian could be built. Not entirely historically accurate, but not terrible.

Basically that, Arkeyn. Instead of getting +50% bonus against all melee units, Axemen could get that bonus against Spearman and other Axeman units, but not against swords. Even such a simple procedure would increase Swordsmen's strategical value a lot, without making the system any more complex than it is.

A word on the polearm units however; they should be solely a counter-measure against mounted units so their position in the military is totally different than that of Swordsmen and Legionaries, so called real melee units. This (at least in my eyes) justifies them having a seperate unit class of their own. A cavalry unit could have bonus against melee units now without taking out their only weakness, for example.

While I agree on spearmen, the hoplite was the backbone of a rather successful Greek military system. I think it should be the earliest advanced unit, able to handle axemen and swordsmen, but easy to beat with legions.